Background
Former tenant Trentiss Mitchell sued his landlord, HIG Realty Credit Fund, L.P., pro se, alleging constructive eviction based on uncompleted apartment repairs. Although Mitchell had moved out nine days before filing suit, his complaint listed the apartment’s Virginia Avenue address as his address.
HIG served discovery, including requests for admission, and later its summary-judgment materials by mail to that address. Mitchell did not respond to the admissions or to the summary-judgment motion. He sought a continuance, asserting improper service, but did not provide a new mailing address or move to withdraw the resulting admissions. The trial court granted HIG summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. HIG properly served Mitchell at his last known address under OCGA § 9-11-5(b), the court held. The record did not show that Mitchell updated his address with the court or opposing counsel, or that HIG knew a new address. The court also found that the trial court’s reference to “Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment” was an obvious scrivener’s error because the order’s substance plainly granted HIG’s motion.
Because Mitchell did not timely answer HIG’s requests for admission, the requested matters were conclusively admitted. Those admissions established that repairs were timely completed, Mitchell was not constructively evicted, and he owed HIG rent and other charges. Mitchell neither sought withdrawal nor amendment of the admissions. Proper service did not require proof of actual notice, and the court rejected his due-process argument. It also declined to consider a reply-brief argument concerning an alleged dispossessory order absent from the record.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se litigant must keep the court and opposing counsel informed of a current address.
- Unanswered requests for admission can conclusively establish facts supporting summary judgment unless formally withdrawn or amended.
- The court cautioned Mitchell that future filings citing fictitious or plainly irrelevant authority, apparently generated without verification, could result in sanctions.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the procedural consequences of failing to update contact information and respond to discovery. Mailing to a party’s last known address can satisfy Georgia’s service rule even if the party says he did not actually receive the papers.
It also serves as a warning to attorneys and self-represented litigants: citations, including those generated with AI assistance, must be verified before filing.